|
United States12270 Posts
On January 16 2009 11:46 Error Ash wrote:
SC2 was played on LAN a hundred times on many events, you all know that. Why even speculate about no LAN support? It's ridiculous. Every non SC player would make fun if SC all the time. This can and will never be true.
Not exactly. In the SC2 playtest build showcased at Blizzcon, you had to press Multiplayer and click either the "1v1" or "2v2" area of the screen, then you were automatically matched against a player and the game launched. There was no LAN interface.
|
I want LAN dropped because I hate cheap scum software pirates, and I hate hackers and cheaters, as should all of you. If it reduces the number of these people by ONE, then it's worth it, because I don't give a damn about people with no internet, and neither should anyone else, because this game is gonna sell through the roof with or without them, in addition to being incredibly fun and a worthwhile sucessor to the original. .
|
United States47024 Posts
On January 16 2009 10:08 Eury wrote:
Why are you so sure that Bnet 2 won't work like Hamachi and probably even better?
And for that matter if everyone are at LAN you will probably get LAN ping on Bnet 2 as custom games will most likely be p2p.
Yes it will suck for those that still don't have broadband but if Blizzard choose to remove the LAN function from the game they have apparently made that the decision that it is a small part of their customers. Trust me, if they make that decision their marketing department have looked into it extremely well.
I have yet to see a game that performs just as well on online server play as it does on a LAN. Until someone can point out a game that performed just as well online as it did on a LAN, with verifiable data, the argument that "Bnet will be just as good of latency as LAN" is stupid, because there's simply no evidence to support that its within Blizzard's power to make it so. Seriously, you don't have to be on a 56k connection to notice the performance difference between LAN play and online play.
As far as I'm concerned, until its possible for most users to get just as good of latency online as you can on a LAN, there is zero reason to remove LAN play as an option.
On January 16 2009 13:35 SaharaDrac wrote:
I want LAN dropped because I hate cheap scum software pirates, and I hate hackers and cheaters, as should all of you. If it reduces the number of these people by ONE, then it's worth it, because I don't give a damn about people with no internet, and neither should anyone else, because this game is gonna sell through the roof with or without them, in addition to being incredibly fun and a worthwhile sucessor to the original. .
This is flawed on several levels:
1) I see no correlation between software pirates and hackers/cheaters. If there is any, please point it out to me. Someone who own a legitimate copy of the game have no less/more reason to cheat than someone who owns a pirated copy.
2) By any modern copy-protection scheme, software piracy should not interfere with your gaming experience, seeing as they can't play on legitimate Battle.net servers anyway. Even if it did, the inclusion or exclusion of LAN play has no connection to that.
3) You're assuming the only people who want LAN play are those who don't have internet connections? What about people who would prefer setting up an event in person? When you have direct contact with other players, LAN play is just better than using any online system, no matter how low the latency online is.
|
On January 16 2009 10:08 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2009 09:48 TheYango wrote:
Read what I said carefully. I didn't say Starcraft players, I said RTS players. This includes games made up to this day. If online play were an adequate substitute for LAN, then why is it that almost all major competitive events for any RTS (and for a large number of games in general) are done offline? You treat people who use LAN play as a strange minority, but the fact of the matter is, it still has legitimate advantages over online play that many gamers (especially competitive gamers) take advantage of today, whether it be through an actual LAN or using something like Hamachi. Why are you so sure that Bnet 2 won't work like Hamachi and probably even better? And for that matter if everyone are at LAN you will probably get LAN ping on Bnet 2 as custom games will most likely be p2p. Yes it will suck for those that still don't have broadband but if Blizzard choose to remove the LAN function from the game they have apparently made that the decision that it is a small part of their customers. Trust me, if they make that decision their marketing department have looked into it extremely well.
Well, it's only a rumor, remember.
It's based on what CHRIS SIGATY said (based on the appearance description the OP's given), and we all know how clueless this guy can be. ;;
|
Osaka27179 Posts
On January 16 2009 13:35 SaharaDrac wrote:
I want LAN dropped because I hate cheap scum software pirates, and I hate hackers and cheaters, as should all of you. If it reduces the number of these people by ONE, then it's worth it, because I don't give a damn about people with no internet, and neither should anyone else, because this game is gonna sell through the roof with or without them, in addition to being incredibly fun and a worthwhile sucessor to the original. .
My grandmother doesn't have internet -_-
You were just warned less than a page ago about lousy posting, yet you did not heed the warning. For that you have been awarded the rarest of bans, the "90 day".
|
On January 16 2009 13:35 SaharaDrac wrote:
I want LAN dropped because I hate cheap scum software pirates, and I hate hackers and cheaters, as should all of you. If it reduces the number of these people by ONE, then it's worth it, because I don't give a damn about people with no internet, and neither should anyone else, because this game is gonna sell through the roof with or without them, in addition to being incredibly fun and a worthwhile sucessor to the original. .
Yes, Blizzard, let's remove an entire feature from the game to stop ONE software pirate! HA! That'll show 'em real good!
Are you fucking kidding me? lmao
Don't be a dick. Just because someone is unfortunate enough to not have a good internet connection or any internet connection at all (poor people, people with dial-up, people who live in communities without a good ISP, etc.), does not mean they should be excluded from being able to have a multiplayer game on StarCraft 2.
|
On January 16 2009 11:14 AlexDjinn4 wrote:
In the real world, when a bussines gets huge ( like blizzard ), soon it will suck !! No lan is just supid ! And all this anti piracy is bull shit ! Its not about that ! Piracy overall helps sells, sounds wierd for dumb people but it really helps ! Helped me buy sc,diablo,cs or war3...99% of SC:BW good players will hate sc2...i know its not out, but from all the info i have ( pretty much everthing out there about the game ) i can say its a huge possibility the game fails ! But big $$$ from blizzard, will help on sales, publicity, good reviews anything !
Lost the inovation, feeling, story of starcraft...wtf...its like a starcraft-red alert-dawn of war-gundam-lego mix...
And its made to be simpler ! Prettier and for all people ( including 6 yo kids, stupid people, non rts people bla bla ) ... THEY SIMPLY TOOK OUT THE "PRO" from it ! Just like CS-Source...still SC : BW AND CS : 1.6 FTW !!! F*** your shiny kiddy new graphics !
Last thing. Back in the day, companies ( blizzard the most ! ) made games ! Good games ! Now they dont make good games ! They sell games ! Starcraft was a great game ! All aspects...story, gameplay, inovation, multiplayer, replayability, sound, video (back then), balance ... ALL !
I really think the game would have been out in 2008 if not all the huge bitchin' of the people...they renamed tempest carrier...and now the DT vote ?! terran look like square lego, the zerg...no comment and prostoss a bit better but the units...no reaver no dragoon no high templar no arbiter??? and wtf colossus stalker ( blink in sc !!? ) ... pylon teleportation...OMG !
I have a new computer. I hoped red alert 3 and call of duty 5 could be good or some 2008-2009 games...but NO! And the only game that i care about ( 2009-2010 non-released just confirmed ) is SC2! I think im gona sell my crapy new computer...and just keep a basic one.Cuz i play SC,WAR3 and CS1.6...the best games ever and i played alot ! And i honestly think i will never play seriosly newer games...only a miracle can make do it! Also 5-6 of my friends play the same games as me and are die hard fans of blizzard and sc, and are very dissapointed !!
The good all days are gone...Sad but true ! Its an era of fools and money...
Peace !
wtf man
I don't think starcraft had any innovations when it came out.
Sc2 can be a good game, if Dawn of War could have been a good game with proper patching and upgrading, then sc2 too.
|
yeah i kinda agree with that post about pirating helping sales. i mean you can kinda think of it as a demo for the game...i mean obviously it's not going to be the same as the official demo but people can't really get online with it right? and what's up with the cd key thing? i mean, it still works right? so if someone pirates starcraft 2 then he either has to stay online 24/7 or he forfeits his cd key so other ppl can install the game and one person at a time plays it online......right?
if you're going to say you want to combat piracy on lan multiplayer gaming...then combat it, right?
if you're going to take out lan that's saying you give up, you surrender to the piracy, and you think that you cannot face the loss of all that money because people are making copies of the game that are demos for them anyway because sooner or later they will buy their own copy so they can play it online. after all they are not at the lan place 24/7 unless they are korean gamers. it would be a pain to make everyone suffer for the sake of the popularity of starcraft in korea. and you have to consider that the copy that got sent to xxx users has to be an extra copy that no one in their right mind would claim is their cd key, since the chances of them being able to sign on with it would be so low...it's kindof a demo copy at that point and it is a full game sale. of course you have to account for the price drop that happens later and then those demo players buy the game at that time sometimes instead of right away. and that could hurt a little. but it's not that big of a deal. just take longer to drop the price, or don't drop it.
if you wanna battle the lan parties in korea, go for it! do something else besides surrendering to it.
don't just say, ok you can now have your fun korean lan parties on bnet. and setup your private servers in korea to keep them happy. what if sc2 blows in korea? then you just wasted your investment. it was a bad idea. but if you didn't take that step and you disallowed lan then the koreans won't like the game because it's a laggy piece of crap. there is simply no way you should be saying to yourselves blizzard that you are allowed to gamble on this matter.
|
On January 16 2009 15:20 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2009 10:08 Eury wrote:
Why are you so sure that Bnet 2 won't work like Hamachi and probably even better?
And for that matter if everyone are at LAN you will probably get LAN ping on Bnet 2 as custom games will most likely be p2p.
Yes it will suck for those that still don't have broadband but if Blizzard choose to remove the LAN function from the game they have apparently made that the decision that it is a small part of their customers. Trust me, if they make that decision their marketing department have looked into it extremely well.
I have yet to see a game that performs just as well on online server play as it does on a LAN. Until someone can point out a game that performed just as well online as it did on a LAN, with verifiable data, the argument that "Bnet will be just as good of latency as LAN" is stupid, because there's simply no evidence to support that its within Blizzard's power to make it so. Seriously, you don't have to be on a 56k connection to notice the performance difference between LAN play and online play.
I didn't say that it would perform as well as it does on LAN if those that you are playing with isn't on the same router. If that was the case it would violate the physical laws.
I said that Bnet 2 will at least perform as well as Hamachi, and no Hamachi isn't LAN latency, if that was the case that would yet again violate the physical laws.
|
On January 16 2009 11:19 AlexDjinn4 wrote:And SC...as a trilogy...announced allready !!! cmon man ! they MILK MILK MILK people out of money man !!! the new EA...u will have too buy all 3...maybe 4  ) dvd's...each with great new missions and 1-2 new units...SAD SAD Hope teamliquid will remain alive...even in 2015 ! and hope SC : BW will live !!
So 2 expansions instead of one is milking? or did you (and all the other people whining about this) forget that SC:BW was Startcraft and the expansion Blood Wars?
Personly i have not made up my mind if i think sc2 if going to be the best thing since breed in slices or is going to flop and destroy esport.
But 2 expansions is not one of the things that make me think it going to flop, no LAN is definitely thing that make me think that it is going to flop and maybe even make me not buy it.
|
The thing is that the only easy/normal way to play wc3 is on the ladder. And people on the ladder are often bm annoying people. Sure you can play non ladder games but it's even harder to find a game there than in SC. Now the more options you'll have to play the game the easier it is to find the one that fits you best and it will sell more games. If bnet has a subscription I will probably not buy the game at all.
|
yo rasmusm, man ! every good game, had 1 exp and patches. if it had the fan base, the gameplay and some competitive future. but thats the past. now the games are made with 1-2 exp ( from the start...i mean why not the whole game in 1 package..if u allready now the features u want in the game, its not decission based on the results of the original game). the problem is the game is not even out ! and u say about 3 parts !? allready ? yes its milking sry ! look at wow ... you gota pay to change your characters look at high level if u want ! thats not milking ??? soon bnet will have mon/fee ! and the no-replay...if real...wtf !? one guy said in a post on why other rts fail , and he was right ! new games are not made to be good and last ! are made with pretty graphics, and to just buy one new game every month...and new computer parts...it all makes sense...
Peace !
|
United States47024 Posts
On January 16 2009 22:42 Eury wrote:
I didn't say that it would perform as well as it does on LAN if those that you are playing with isn't on the same router. If that was the case it would violate the physical laws.
I said that Bnet 2 will at least perform as well as Hamachi, and no Hamachi isn't LAN latency, if that was the case that would yet again violate the physical laws.
I'll meet you in the middle then. Show me ONE game where even for people on the same router, online play is as good as LAN play. Because that's the whole argument here: if you can't do as well as LAN play, there's no reason to remove LAN play, period. There's not a strong enough correlation between piracy and LAN play to warrant it, and its by far NOT a "useless" feature.
I brought up Hamachi as an example, not as a standard by which Bnet 2 should be judged. Unless Bnet 2 is comparable to LAN play, there's no reason not to have LAN play.
I still haven't seen a single viable argument for removing LAN play. The piracy argument is, IMO, a complete sham. There's no correlation you can make between piracy rates and the presence/absence of LAN play that might be backed up by real data (or if there is, no one has brought up that data).
|
Sweden33723 Posts
On January 17 2009 02:04 AlexDjinn4 wrote:
yo rasmusm, man ! every good game, had 1 exp and patches. if it had the fan base, the gameplay and some competitive future. but thats the past. now the games are made with 1-2 exp ( from the start...i mean why not the whole game in 1 package..if u allready now the features u want in the game, its not decission based on the results of the original game). the problem is the game is not even out ! and u say about 3 parts !? allready ? yes its milking sry ! look at wow ... you gota pay to change your characters look at high level if u want ! thats not milking ??? soon bnet will have mon/fee ! and the no-replay...if real...wtf !? one guy said in a post on why other rts fail , and he was right ! new games are not made to be good and last ! are made with pretty graphics, and to just buy one new game every month...and new computer parts...it all makes sense...
Peace !
I can more or less guarantee you that BW was already in development when they released SC.
The no-replays thing is NOT about SC2, it's about WC3 (wc3 only has replays offline). As far as we know, SC2 has online replays.
Blizzard has repeatedly stated that their goal is to make the system requirements as accessable as possible - they won't be that high.
You can be however critical of SC2 you like, but some of your criticism is just false - BNet will NOT be pay to play for instance.
|
On January 17 2009 02:19 TheYango wrote:
I'll meet you in the middle then. Show me ONE game where even for people on the same router, online play is as good as LAN play. Because that's the whole argument here: if you can't do as well as LAN play, there's no reason to remove LAN play, period. There's not a strong enough correlation between piracy and LAN play to warrant it, and its by far NOT a "useless" feature.
I brought up Hamachi as an example, not as a standard by which Bnet 2 should be judged. Unless Bnet 2 is comparable to LAN play, there's no reason not to have LAN play.
I still haven't seen a single viable argument for removing LAN play. The piracy argument is, IMO, a complete sham. There's no correlation you can make between piracy rates and the presence/absence of LAN play that might be backed up by real data (or if there is, no one has brought up that data).
When I play custom maps in Warcraft 3 with my friends at LAN on Bnet we all have close to no latency as long as it is one of us that are hosting. Our opponents is a different story of course as they aren't at our LAN.
There is a small delay due to the Bnet protocol is optimized for dial-up connections. That will obviously not be the case with Bnet 2 I'm pretty damn sure.
I'm not a stench supporter of removing LAN either but I can see why Blizzard would do it. Their reasoning must be that non-broadband users are the only ones that suffer from it and they are a very tiny part of their paying customers and it combats piracy somewhat.
Yes there will be "custom Bnet servers" but Blizzard can just shot down the more popular ones like they are doing now with WoW and private servers which adds incentive to use Bnet instead.
|
United States47024 Posts
On January 17 2009 02:51 Eury wrote:
I'm not a stench supporter of removing LAN either but I can see why Blizzard would do it. Their reasoning must be that non-broadband users are the only ones that suffer from it and they are a very tiny part of their paying customers and it combats piracy somewhat.
Yes there will be "custom Bnet servers" but Blizzard can just shot down the more popular ones like they are doing now with WoW and private servers which adds incentive to use Bnet instead.
Did you finish reading what I said? There is no correlation between piracy and LAN play. Using it as justification is unfounded.
|
On January 17 2009 03:02 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2009 02:51 Eury wrote:
I'm not a stench supporter of removing LAN either but I can see why Blizzard would do it. Their reasoning must be that non-broadband users are the only ones that suffer from it and they are a very tiny part of their paying customers and it combats piracy somewhat.
Yes there will be "custom Bnet servers" but Blizzard can just shot down the more popular ones like they are doing now with WoW and private servers which adds incentive to use Bnet instead.
Did you finish reading what I said? There is no correlation between piracy and LAN play. Using it as justification is unfounded.
Well it is your opinion that there is no correlation. Obviously Blizzard disagree with you if they choose to remove the LAN option or can you imagine some other reason why they would remove the LAN option?
I really don't care either way as it doesn't effect me what so ever.
|
United States47024 Posts
On January 17 2009 03:05 Eury wrote:
Well it is your opinion that there is no correlation. Obviously Blizzard disagree with you if they choose to remove the LAN option or can you imagine some other reason why they would remove the LAN option?
I really don't care either way as it doesn't effect me what so ever.
It's not my opinion. No one in this thread has presented any evidence of a correlation between piracy and LAN play, even though that seems to be the major pro-removing LAN argument. The burden of proof is on proving that there IS a correlation, not that there ISN'T. You don't assume correlations are true and prove them false.
|
United States12270 Posts
On January 17 2009 06:56 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2009 03:05 Eury wrote:
Well it is your opinion that there is no correlation. Obviously Blizzard disagree with you if they choose to remove the LAN option or can you imagine some other reason why they would remove the LAN option?
I really don't care either way as it doesn't effect me what so ever. It's not my opinion. No one in this thread has presented any evidence of a correlation between piracy and LAN play, even though that seems to be the major pro-removing LAN argument. The burden of proof is on proving that there IS a correlation, not that there ISN'T. You don't assume correlations are true and prove them false.
From the point of view of an outsider and the point of view of Blizzard's sales department, the burden of proof IS on you to show that there is no correlation between piracy and LAN play. If LAN play is removed due to piracy concerns, it's for one of two reasons: either they have researched and calculated that it's worth it to remove it, or they are playing it safe because of the possibilities of piracy. You're forgetting that you are the one petitioning to keep LAN play, so you need to present the evidence to support your position.
|
Or it's an unfounded rumour...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
